Obama checkmates himself on sequester

[CPA]

Day 2 of the Sequester (actually Day 1 since the order was signed last night)! Has the world ended?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Day 2 of the Sequester (actually Day 1 since the order was signed last night)! Has the world ended?

According to the Dem's lackeys in the DHS and DOJ, Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder there should be a terrorist attack any minute now.

 

[Darwin333]

Only Bob Woodward, who considers himself a prince of Washington, would consider that extremely polite email (from an aide, not from Obama) to be a threat. Woodward doesn't belong in the big leagues anymore if he (or anyone else) actually considers that a threat.

As to the OP's assertion, don't delude yourself. Noone ever said the negative impacts of Congress' boneheaded play regarding sequestration would be instantaneously apparent. You show a remarkable lack of understanding of economics, or even cause and effect for that matter.

Is it ever possible to reduce government spending without negatively impacting the economy in some way?

 

[hal2kilo]

Anyone who thought the effects would be felt immediately is an idiot. He's just explaining this to the average American idiot.

Nothing of any major consequence is going to happen until mid April. But, all the geniuses on this forum already know there's not going to be any effect.

You guys got some stock picks?

 

[ivwshane]

Is it ever possible to reduce government spending without negatively impacting the economy in some way?

Yes, in a very strong economy.

 

[Darwin333]

See how easy your reply was dissed and dismissed when you provided direct evidence that the sequester had an immediate impact? Well, here in Hawaii hundreds of workers just got their layoff and furlough notices too. And that's just for starters. But no big deal huh? Their jobs needed cutting anyway? Really? How easy it is to pooh pooh the loss of your friend's and other's jobs when it not THEIR OWN jobs being cut/furloughed.

One has to wonder why that only the conservatives in this thread seem to be jumping all over your post. One also has to wonder about the folks in this thread who are defending their Repub leaders how they'd feel if THEY were directly and immediately affected from having THEIR jobs getting cut because of the political brinksmanship that's going on at present. Would they still feel exactly how they've expressed themselves in response to your post? Just asking.

Highly unlikely. Just about everyone is far more concerned with what is good for themselves than what is good for the country. Even the "small government no deficit" Republicans want to cut everything BUT the programs they enjoy.

OTOH, we can not mathematically continue spending like this so we must cut spending eventually. The longer we wait the worse the pain will be but we will eventually be forced to take our medicine.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, in a very strong economy.

Wrong. It is mathematically impossible.

Growth might outpace whatever negative impacts the spending decrease causes but there will be an impact regardless. You can't beat math.

 

[Darwin333]

Why should he be required to do the job of Congress?

Because he wants to do what is in the best interests of the country?

Seriously, thats a piss poor argument given the fact that the left blames Congress (right or wrong, irrelevant) for basically all of Obama's failures. Not to mention the fact that Obama has circumvented Congress before in order to do what he claimed was the right thing.

 

[nehalem256]

Is it ever possible to reduce government spending without negatively impacting the economy in some way?

It is neither possible to reduce spending or increase taxes without negatively impacting the economy.

 

[cubby1223]

It is neither possible to reduce spending or increase taxes without negatively impacting the economy.

That is assuming we are continually capable of convincing other countries to give us their money so that we don't inflate our currency.

 

[ivwshane]

Wrong. It is mathematically impossible.

Growth might outpace whatever negative impacts the spending decrease causes but there will be an impact regardless. You can't beat math.

During the 90's was government spending not down? And the economy was doing fine.

 

[trenchfoot]

Highly unlikely. Just about everyone is far more concerned with what is good for themselves than what is good for the country. Even the "small government no deficit" Republicans want to cut everything BUT the programs they enjoy.

OTOH, we can not mathematically continue spending like this so we must cut spending eventually. The longer we wait the worse the pain will be but we will eventually be forced to take our medicine.

Agreed, with the proviso that we also get rid of tax loopholes that exclusively favor the very rich and big businesses. If the middle class enjoyed loopholes exclusively targeted at them just like the rich and big businesses have, then the middle class probably wouldn't have to pay any or hardly any taxes at all, just like a lot of those rich folks and big businesses enjoy right at this very moment. If the middle class can't have'um, why should the rich? Fair is fair.

 

[cubby1223]

During the 90's was government spending not down? And the economy was doing fine.

Economy would have been better those years if we took more of China's money and distributed it out across the U.S. during the 90's.

 

[MiniDoom]

During the 90's was government spending not down? And the economy was doing fine.

That perception of the economy doing fine was partly due to .com bubble, which was passed on to the real estate bubble, which was passed on to the .gov bubble. We're running out of ammo.

 

[ivwshane]

That perception of the economy doing fine was partly due to .com bubble, which was passed on to the real estate bubble, which was passed on to the .gov bubble. We're running out of ammo.

Why the economy was doing good doesn't really have to do with the question that was asked. Government spent less and there was no perceivable negative effect.

 

[ccbadd]

Yes I'm sure government layoffs are what our economy really needs to thrive at this point in time. I expect only good things to come of this.

You said it! Cut (fire) half the government employees (not including military) and two years later, maybe sooner, and we will see a real boom, not a fed created bubble. Next, wipe out the stupid tax code and start from scratch with no special interest paid for perks and things will really take off! But the dense in the head liberals will insure this never happens and then blame the economy on someone else.

 

[ivwshane]

You said it! Cut (fire) half the government employees (not including military) and two years later, maybe sooner, and we will see a real boom, not a fed created bubble. Next, wipe out the stupid tax code and start from scratch with no special interest paid for perks and things will really take off! But the dense in the head liberals will insure this never happens and then blame the economy on someone else.

So exactly how and why would the economy take off once we have massive unemployment from all those government workers being laid off?
What sort of industries would be created or boom because of less government spending!

And lastly, what specifically is the government doing now that is causing the second question not to take place?

 

[ccbadd]

So exactly how and why would the economy take off once we have massive unemployment from all those government workers being laid off?
What sort of industries would be created or boom because of less government spending!

And lastly, what specifically is the government doing now that is causing the second question not to take place?

What happened first? Did industrial growth lead to government growth or government growth lead to industrial growth anywhere in the world? For your second question, how would a lowered industrial growth provide for bigger government growth? And be sustainable? What has been the government growth in the US vs economic/industrial growth over the last 5 years? Where have the jobs come from. If they come from government, all the pressure is placed on the private sector, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, to provide for a growing government when the private sector can barely afford the expenses they have. Who should bare this pressure, the working class or the public sector?

 

[ivwshane]

What happened first? Did industrial growth lead to government growth or government growth lead to industrial growth anywhere in the world? For your second question, how would a lowered industrial growth provide for bigger government growth? And be sustainable? What has been the government growth in the US vs economic/industrial growth over the last 5 years? Where have the jobs come from. If they come from government, all the pressure is placed on the private sector, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, to provide for a growing government when the private sector can barely afford the expenses they have. Who should bare this pressure, the working class or the public sector?

Lol, do you plan on answering any questions or are you just going to ask more questions?

 

[ccbadd]

Lets take it a step further, can the government provide ANY service directly? No, the are using the labors of people, like doctors and nurses. These are private people and they have a right to their services. So government acts as a middle man and extracts a fee for doing such. Add the cost of regulation, and they become a captive service, a natural trust or monopoly. So breaking up government would serve the same as breaking up a huge conglomerate such as ATT in the 80's.

 

[ivwshane]

Lets take it a step further, can the government provide ANY service directly? No, the are using the labors of people, like doctors and nurses. These are private people and they have a right to their services. So government acts as a middle man and extracts a fee for doing such. Add the cost of regulation, and they become a captive service, a natural trust or monopoly. So breaking up government would serve the same as breaking up a huge conglomerate such as ATT in the 80's.

Sure because without government spending I'm sure a private army will step up to fill all those billions of dollars worth of government contracts and anything else defense related./s

 

[CPA]

Day 3 of the Sequester. I don't see 170 million people out at any soup lines yet. Things still look okay, but I'll keep an ever vigilant eye out for the expected disasters.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, in a very strong economy.

Uh uh and this is the answer one gets during a strong economy when asking about cutting back spending.

"If we cut govt spending now it will hurt future growth".

 

[ivwshane]

Uh uh and this is the answer one gets during a strong economy when asking about cutting back spending.

"If we cut govt spending now it will hurt future growth".

Except when Clinton was president...

 

[trenchfoot]

Day 3 of the Sequester. I don't see 170 million people out at any soup lines yet. Things still look okay, but I'll keep an ever vigilant eye out for the expected disasters.

"Disasters" is a relative term. The hundreds of workers that just got laid off/furloughed from shipyard jobs here at Pearl Harbor and at the private non-union businesses that contract and subcontract work from the DOD is quite clearly disasterous for them what with mortgages/rent that now can't be paid, children that can't be fed and clothed properly, etc.

I can agree with you that there's no disaster at all if we're just talking about the very rich who "earn" almost all of their loot from capital gains instead of the hourly/monthly wages that us commoners scratch out for a living.

As always though, the peasants must suffer first to protect the treasures of the rich. The folks that skim the cream off the top must have theirs first before the watered down skim milk can be had by the cannon fodder. The big businessmen and women, the generals, the adimirals, the managers with the golden parachutes, our legislators and administrators, they all get to keep theirs because for sure, absolutely for sure, the folks who will suffer first and the worst are the ones who actually keep the economy running <-----us consumers.